Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#43 May 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Offer a Conservative a solution which will work without increasing taxes or requiring government action and they will RUN LIKE PUSSIES in the other direction.
What's the matter, bitch? Afraid you can't compete in the free market?
Obviously, your entire argument is simply a smoke screen for your racism.
If you HONESTLY believed what you claim you believe, you would jump at the chance to fix this "problem".
But you won't. Because you're just a little bitch
So very dumb and un-Constitutional.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#44 May 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that because someone is not a citizen, they are a potential terrorist.
Tim McVeigh was a citizen and a terrorist. Therefore, by your reasoning, anyone who is a citizen is a potential terrorist.
<quoted text>
What we don't have is the money, manpower, jails or courts which could possibly round up and deal with the number of immigrants already here.
So, unless you are willing to sign onto a 5% across the board tax increase for EVERYONE, where are you going to get the money to solve this problem through enforcement?
Fortunately, there is ANOTHER option. There is a way for you PERSONALLY to get rid of ALL the illegal immigrants within ONE month. It would require ZERO new taxes. ZERO work by law enforcement.
AND, best of all, it would be buying into your love of the free market economy.
Just go out and take their jobs. We have high unemployment. Get all those out of work people to do the jobs the immigrants are doing for LESS MONEY than the immigrants are getting paid and the immigrants will GO HOME.
Problem solved and it doesn't require one of your Conservative Nanny State solutions.
There is plenty of money to enforce current laws on immigration..They just need to quit spending money on the sex habit of the western cricket,and other programs similar to that..lol
Enforce the current laws and you will get a lot of people off of public assistance,free medical,free schooling,etc. which will save the government a lot of money..
Enforce the current laws and secure the border.Nothing more..Nothing less.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#45 May 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Offer a Conservative a solution which will work without increasing taxes or requiring government action and they will RUN LIKE PUSSIES in the other direction.
What's the matter, bitch? Afraid you can't compete in the free market?
Obviously, your entire argument is simply a smoke screen for your racism.
If you HONESTLY believed what you claim you believe, you would jump at the chance to fix this "problem".
But you won't. Because you're just a little bitch
So very stupid and un-Constitutional.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#46 May 5, 2013
dollop wrote:
<quoted text>
So very dumb and un-Constitutional.
It's unConstitutional for an American to compete in the free market?

Wow, you are the most confused Conservative I've ever seen and that's saying quite a lot

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#48 May 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you aren't very good at math and are even worse at science.
I have given you a solution which costs 0 tax dollars and will work in 1 month.
You are demanding that we spend BILLIONS on a program that will take DECADES.
You Big Government Nanny State guys are worthless.
<quoted text>
How many illegal immigrants are there in the US?
How many of them came across the border as opposed to overstayed a visa?
How many immigration enforcement agents do we have?
How much time does it take an agent to locate an immigrant, arrest them, process the paperwork, jail them, show up at their trial and testify?
Seriously. You CAN'T honestly believe that we could do this using the existing forces. We would need to increase existing funding by at least 10X and we still wouldn't make a dent.
-or-
My solution will get rid of ALL illegal immigrants in 1 month and cost the tax payers nothing.
But you are too much of a pussy to solve the problem.
Making all the illegal immigrants citizens is not an option to me..A fairly high percentage of illegal immigrants are on some sort of public assistance,and get free medical and schooling..Deporting them will take that burden off the legal citizens of this Country.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#49 May 5, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Making all the illegal immigrants citizens is not an option to me..A fairly high percentage of illegal immigrants are on some sort of public assistance,and get free medical and schooling..Deporting them will take that burden off the legal citizens of this Country.
First of all, what's "an option for you" is irrelevant.

It's a matter of economics and practicality.

Since you categorically refuse to fix the problem through the extremely simple and cost effective method I've given you, your only remaining options are:
A) Spend decades and billions to NOT successfully fix the problem
B) Off amnesty and boost the US GDP by billions

You support A, because like all Conservatives your politics are based in racism not practicality. You don't care if there is a solution just so long as minorities suffer along the way.

Further, this claim of public assistance is simply false and you know it.

Additionally, you aren't just calling for the deportation of immigrants, you are calling for the deportation of CITIZENS.

But, to be "fair" to you, if they are minorities, they don't count as citizens. Right?

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#50 May 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It's unConstitutional for an American to compete in the free market?
Wow, you are the most confused Conservative I've ever seen and that's saying quite a lot
You don't even know the subject at hand is about our International Borders and Constitutional Law that they be protected. LOL!

How stupid.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#51 May 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, what's "an option for you" is irrelevant.
It's a matter of economics and practicality.
Since you categorically refuse to fix the problem through the extremely simple and cost effective method I've given you, your only remaining options are:
A) Spend decades and billions to NOT successfully fix the problem
B) Off amnesty and boost the US GDP by billions
You support A, because like all Conservatives your politics are based in racism not practicality. You don't care if there is a solution just so long as minorities suffer along the way.
Further, this claim of public assistance is simply false and you know it.
Additionally, you aren't just calling for the deportation of immigrants, you are calling for the deportation of CITIZENS.
But, to be "fair" to you, if they are minorities, they don't count as citizens. Right?
No deportation of American citizens..If the citizen is a child born in the US,then give the parents a choice of taking the child with them or allowing legal citizens to keep the child,and they go back to Mexico...Actually I am in favor of changing the law so that any child born here does not get to be a citizen of the US just because they were born here..Though in the light of compromise,under certain circumstances,the parents and child can stay here,but when the child becomes an adult,the parents will then be deported.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#52 May 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, what's "an option for you" is irrelevant.
It's a matter of economics and practicality.
Since you categorically refuse to fix the problem through the extremely simple and cost effective method I've given you, your only remaining options are:
A) Spend decades and billions to NOT successfully fix the problem
B) Off amnesty and boost the US GDP by billions
You support A, because like all Conservatives your politics are based in racism not practicality. You don't care if there is a solution just so long as minorities suffer along the way.
Further, this claim of public assistance is simply false and you know it.
Additionally, you aren't just calling for the deportation of immigrants, you are calling for the deportation of CITIZENS.
But, to be "fair" to you, if they are minorities, they don't count as citizens. Right?
It is a matter of law.We need secure borders,and yesterday would not be too soon.
Stray Dog

Livingston, TN

#53 May 5, 2013
Ole Nuggy is in prime shape today, spewin' ignorance out big time.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#54 May 5, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a matter of law.We need secure borders,and yesterday would not be too soon.
You talk and talk and talk about secure borders, but you don't mean it.

You want a wall to keep out the brown people.

Our border with Canada is 3x as long as our border with Mexico. Where is the push to secure it?

I've given you a simple fix that completely gets rid of all illegal immigrants and you won't do it.

WHy? Because, like abortion, you WANT illegal immigrants so you can have something to bitch about.

No Conservative would EVER EVER EVER end abortion or fix immigration. Their voters are too ignorant to be allowed to look into other issues.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#55 May 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, what's "an option for you" is irrelevant.
It's a matter of economics and practicality.
Since you categorically refuse to fix the problem through the extremely simple and cost effective method I've given you, your only remaining options are:
A) Spend decades and billions to NOT successfully fix the problem
B) Off amnesty and boost the US GDP by billions
You support A, because like all Conservatives your politics are based in racism not practicality. You don't care if there is a solution just so long as minorities suffer along the way.
Further, this claim of public assistance is simply false and you know it.
Additionally, you aren't just calling for the deportation of immigrants, you are calling for the deportation of CITIZENS.
But, to be "fair" to you, if they are minorities, they don't count as citizens. Right?
In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#56 May 5, 2013
Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.
An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.
If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.
Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.
For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.
Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.
The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.
http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#57 May 5, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal....
Stop right there. Your claim was _ILLEGAL_ immigrants. You can't quote sources talking about LEGAL immigrants.
Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
Again...._ILLEGAL_ vs _LEGAL_. Everyone here is meaningless.
A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens.
Now you are talking about _NON_ immigrants.

No illegals in the conversation at all anymore.

Clearly you are just a racist. Your smoke screen of it being about illegal immigration has been blown away by the fact that you've completely lost the "illegal" aspect of your argument

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#58 May 5, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
blah blah blah here's some stuff about LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Let's kick them out of the country. Also, let's kick out citizens who aren't white. Blah blah blah
The fact of the matter is, Green. If it wasn't for food assistance for immigrants, there would be no United States at all.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#59 May 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is, Green. If it wasn't for food assistance for immigrants, there would be no United States at all.
Time to wake up from your dream world.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#60 May 5, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Making all the illegal immigrants citizens is not an option to me..A fairly high percentage of illegal immigrants are on some sort of public assistance,and get free medical and schooling..Deporting them will take that burden off the legal citizens of this Country.
I agree that deporting illegal immigrants would take a large burden off our hands. Making illegal immigrants citizens is not an option for me either. The government needs to send all of them back to their own country NOW. Not tomorrow or the next day. NOW!
Stray Dog

Livingston, TN

#61 May 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is, Green. If it wasn't for food assistance for immigrants, there would be no United States at all.
Sounds like something Nancy Piglosi would say.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#62 May 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop right there. Your claim was _ILLEGAL_ immigrants. You can't quote sources talking about LEGAL immigrants.
<quoted text>
Again...._ILLEGAL_ vs _LEGAL_. Everyone here is meaningless.
<quoted text>
Now you are talking about _NON_ immigrants.
No illegals in the conversation at all anymore.
Clearly you are just a racist. Your smoke screen of it being about illegal immigration has been blown away by the fact that you've completely lost the "illegal" aspect of your argument
A Whopping 57 Percent Of Illegal Alien Migrants On Welfare

http://beforeitsnews.com/immigration/2013/01/...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#63 May 5, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to wake up from your dream world.
Once again, your lack of education results in blanket denial of the reality of our nations history.

In Jamestown they turned to cannibalism. Had the Native Americans not helped them, poof. Gone.

Roanoke stuck around for a year due to Native American food aid, then whey they got cut off - poof. Gone.

The Pilgrims? Likewise, starving to death. They were so _THANKFUL_ for the free food the Native Americans gave them that they started our FIRST NATIONAL HOLIDAY. Arbor Day! No. No. That's not it. Easter? No. That's a Pagan Holiday.... what was it? What was the holiday that the Pilgrims were GIVING THANKS for?

Do you know?

Do you need more hints?

It has to do with Native Americans bringing them food.

Are you honestly this f(#king stupid?

Oh wait, let me guess. Doesn't count. White immigrants getting food assistance from people who already live here is NOT welfare. It only counts as welfare if it's someone who isn't white.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jamestown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
amber potter rupert 5 hr JustMe 10
Keith Reagan 9 hr JustMe 1
crybaby carol 10 hr Duh 2
Bigfoot Sightings? Any ever in Fentress County? (Feb '12) 10 hr Upchuck 40
Car for sale!! 15 hr ChevFn 3
Crossville Topix moderators deleting Conservati... 18 hr Very Interesting 2
The obama Legacy Of Failure 21 hr Roudy The Second 19
Jamestown Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Jamestown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]